Questions about audiophile quality.

[jonmyrlebailey]

Where is the best place to sit while listening to pipe organ music in a church it's housed in?

What kind of home audio equipment is needed to play back pipe organ music recordings that sound as close to a live performance as possible?

Do vinyl stereo records surpass MP3 files for organ music reproduction?

I have heard the famous recording of E Power Biggs' playing of Toccata and Fugue in D Minor on the Flentrop at Harvard via Columbia Records.

It seems to have sounded better on our 1970's home hi-fi stereo in LP form than as an MP3 played back on any modern headset music player I've listened to with equalizer.

[VaPipeorgantuner]

The best listening position partly depends on where the organ is located in the church building. Generally, I would recommend the center axis of the building about 2/3 the distance from the organ on that central axis. The best position for the ORGAN to be situated is the central axis of the building and elevated as high as the architecture will allow. In a cathedral setting, sometimes it is best to be seated as close to the console as can be allowed so that you hear the same balance as the person playing the organ.

As to which home audio equipment is the best is probably a subject for debate among audiophiles. Digital recordings are accurate, but sometimes seem "cold" when compared to those same recordings that were released on vinyl (way back when). The equalization curves set up for vinyl playback are different from those used for digital playback. My favorite recordings from back in the day were the Command records done by Virgil Fox. They seemed to capture the organ sound fairly accurately for the technology available at the time.

Rick in VA

[myorgan]

Where is the best place to sit while listening to pipe organ music in a church it's housed in?

In a chair-seriously, though, I prefer to sit off-center because a "perfect stereo" sound isn't as exciting for me and doesn't sound realistic.

What kind of home audio equipment is needed to play back pipe organ music recordings that sound as close to a live performance as possible?

The sound system should have the ability to reproduce 20Hz-20kHz, and at least 100 Watts per channel RMS. Most of all, your system should have a room large enough for the sound to develop all the frequencies and surround you with sound.

Do vinyl stereo records surpass MP3 files for organ music reproduction?
[snip]
It seems to have sounded better on our 1970's home hi-fi stereo in LP form than as an MP3 played back on any modern headset music player I've listened to with equalizer.

That question is the subject of much debate. In theory, digital reproduction should be better than analog, however, an mp3 recording is compressed (frequencies compiled and some removed) which is not as good as an uncompressed audio signal. That said, some people believe a digital reproduction is too pure, therefore isn't as interesting.

Hope that helps get you started.

Michael

[michaelhoddy]

Obviously, what constitutes "good audio" is somewhat conjectural and dependent on the demands of the particular listener, but I wouldn't get too hung up on the "20 Hz to 20 Khz" figure, as no normal-sized listening room is really capable of uncolored response especially in the bass regions anyway, and no adult can hear meaningfully above about 15 kHz anyway even with optimal hearing.

What I would concentrate on is getting usable bass response to 30 Hz or a little below (-10 db), as well as electrical and mechanical headroom to produce those frequencies over time, and main speakers that are as phase-accurate as possible and can respond well up to at least 15 kHz.

I work in high-end commercial pro audio. The problem with most normal consumer speakers is that they're really trash from a technical standpoint, a lot of the higher-end audiophile components are snake-oil esoteric (and expensive), and the limiting factors almost always end up being the listening room, the hearing of the listener, and the limitations of the source material. The other issue is that the listed specs for much consumer gear, and even a lot of commercial gear, can be manipulated very easily to paint the product in the best light, to the point of being essentially meaningless from a measurement standpoint.

My current listening setup is an Onkyo receiver, a JBL LSR 10" powered studio subwoofer, and (2) Danley Sound Labs Nano satellites. Danley is a commercial speaker company we are dealers for. The whole setup costs around $1200 "street" costs, is set up in my 18' x 28' x 8' family room. This setup probably does about 27 Hz to 14.7 kHz usable response (not flat response, which is less) reproduces organ music very satisfyingly.

[jonmyrlebailey]

Obviously, what constitutes "good audio" is somewhat conjectural and dependent on the demands of the particular listener, but I wouldn't get too hung up on the "20 Hz to 20 Khz" figure, as no normal-sized listening room is really capable of uncolored response especially in the bass regions anyway, and no adult can hear meaningfully above about 15 kHz anyway even with optimal hearing.

What I would concentrate on is getting usable bass response to 30 Hz or a little below (-10 db), as well as electrical and mechanical headroom to produce those frequencies over time, and main speakers that are as phase-accurate as possible and can respond well up to at least 15 kHz.

I work in high-end commercial pro audio. The problem with most normal consumer speakers is that they're really trash from a technical standpoint, a lot of the higher-end audiophile components are snake-oil esoteric (and expensive), and the limiting factors almost always end up being the listening room, the hearing of the listener, and the limitations of the source material. The other issue is that the listed specs for much consumer gear, and even a lot of commercial gear, can be manipulated very easily to paint the product in the best light, to the point of being essentially meaningless from a measurement standpoint.

My current listening setup is an Onkyo receiver, a JBL LSR 10" powered studio subwoofer, and (2) Danley Sound Labs Nano satellites. Danley is a commercial speaker company we are dealers for. The whole setup costs around $1200 "street" costs, is set up in my 18' x 28' x 8' family room. This setup probably does about 27 Hz to 14.7 kHz usable response (not flat response, which is less) reproduces organ music very satisfyingly.

Great organists of the later half of 20th century were carried on the Columbia Records label as Anthony Newman and E Power Biggs. Sony now carries them on CD. Is suspect that the most superior recording methods and technology of their days were employed by Columbia to forever capture their treasures onto master tapes and then to vinyl. It's a matter of most people's of selecting the best playback equipment within their budget for the living space they have at home. Some audio equipment is probably still superior to others for the limits of our living room space.

Biggs/Newman and Columbia are gold standards to me for performer quality and recording quality. Some organs played by Biggs on recordings seem to sound better than others: the Flentrop in Harvard is remarkable. Not too much echo and not muddy. Very clear warm tones and bright. The bass line comes in strong and distinct. Not abrasive or shrill on the ear drums.

A live performance is what all playback equipment should be measured against. There are professional wine and coffee tasters. How does one professionally "taste" audio equipment for quality and overall listener satisfaction?

Blind listening tests

Is it live or is it Memorex?
Is it a cathedral or is it your living room?
Is it live or is it Onkyo?
Is it live or is it MP3?

[michaelhoddy]

Interesting your illustration of this using the Biggs Bach recordings on the Harvard Busch Hall Flentrop as an example. As an undergrad organ student, I listened to those recordings on repeat for months at a time. Much more recently, I attended a recital on the Flentrop when I was in Cambridge.

The organ sounds wonderful, but the Biggs recordings sound more present, alive, and vibrant than the organ does in person. Perhaps the acoustics in the hall have changed over the decades since. Perhaps the seating location on the floor is less ideal than where they placed the mics. Who knows? But I prefer the recordings in that instance.

[myorgan]

Michael et al.,

I suspect audio recording at the time of E.P. Biggs was an artform, much like Video and Audio processing are today. Very little video we watch does NOT have various video processing effects applied. I would submit the same about audio processing of people's performance. Especially in media outlets, students are taught to "fatten" the sound or process it in other ways. I suspect the same practice was in effect in the middle part of the last century.

Michael

[Leisesturm]

I have more vinyl in my basement than most people. Like about 12 milk crates full. I have a Dual turntable with a Grado cartridge and a Technics turntable with whatever cartridge came with it. I have uncountable numbers of CD's. I haven't listened to a vinyl record in 20 years. I haven't listened to a CD in ten. Like it or not the de facto audio storage format of the late 20th Century onward is the MP3 format. Done right, with optimal sampling and bit rates and minimal compression levels, the results are superior to vinyl. The 'warmth' of vinyl was actually a defect. A defect that became ingrained. Look how long shutterbugs snubbed digital cameras. Where is film now? I've got a Pentax 1000 and a couple of really nice lenses but LONG ago my 7MP (megapixel) Kodak digital camera (where is Kodak today?) put the Pentax out to pasture, permanently. There are very, very, few things in my vinyl collection that aren't also on YouTube. Keeping a turntable set up is not worth the space it needs.

[myorgan]

There are very, very, few things in my vinyl collection that aren't also on YouTube. Keeping a turntable set up is not worth the space it needs.

Hence, the original post. As my father used to say, "Opinions are like noses-everyone has one."

BTW, I perfonally prefer my Canon, but my wife likes her Sony.:o

Michael

[jbird604]

Another thing to keep in mind is that not all MP3 recordings are created equal. The "bit rate" is of vast importance. There was a carefully controlled experiment carried out a few years ago by one of the high-end audio magazines, designed to determine whether or not most people can distinguish between a true loss-less recording and the various MP3 bit-rates. It was found that at the 320K rate, virtually nobody can reliably tell the MP3 from the original, but at rates below that, more and more people were able to distinguish them. The lower the bit-rate, the more obvious the difference, of course.

I find this true in my own experience. Every fall when teaching the Christmas cantata to my choir, I distribute recordings of the music so the members can listen and practice on their own. Those who want a CD of course get a lossless recording. But others want me to email them a set of MP3's to put on their phones. I keep the bit rate as high as I can, but there is a limit to the size of the file than can be sent via email. One year the program was extra long and I had to compress it to something under 100k to get it small enough to email.

Let me tell you, the low bit-rate recordings are pretty awful! Personally, I can't stand to listen to them. While a 320k MP3 is just fine, a 128k is barely tolerable, and when you get down to 64k you might as well be listening to the lousiest AM radio broadcast you ever heard!

So, you MIGHT be able to enjoy pipe organ recordings in MP3 format IF they are at the 320k bit rate. Lower rates certainly compromise the sound somewhat, and organ sound is probably more subject to ruinous distortion than other kinds of music.

[Larrytow]

I find this true in my own experience. Every fall when teaching the Christmas cantata to my choir, I distribute recordings of the music so the members can listen and practice on their own. Those who want a CD of course get a lossless recording. But others want me to email them a set of MP3's to put on their phones. I keep the bit rate as high as I can, but there is a limit to the size of the file than can be sent via email. One year the program was extra long and I had to compress it to something under 100k to get it small enough to email.

When I want to send files that are too large to attach to an e-mail, I upload them to a folder on one of my G drive accounts ( or MSN , or the like. ). Then you can get a link to send via e-mail, and they can just go to it and download it. I think I have a Box account too, but that seems clunkier to use. As much as I don't like the G mail interface, and won't use it as a main e-mail, I really do like the G drive one. Go figure !

It is pretty neat to have quite a bit of online storage space for things that you want to share privately. And each G account has it's own space to keep stuff. So if you have 2 or 3 of them, you can kinda use them for different uses : One for truck stuff, one for organ stuff, etc.

[jbird604]

Good idea. I may try that this year. Seems like the possible ways to share files keep multiplying.

[Philip Powell]

I play a pipe organ in a pretty large church and from my own experience, dead center is the best place to sit. Although, if you want to feel perfectly awesome, go sit in the loft! ;-)